The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Jerry Joslyn

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.JERRY JOSLYN, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered November 9, 2010.

People v Joslyn

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Released on February 8, 2013

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [7]), for trading a rifle that had been placed in his possession for safe keeping, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (§ 240.50 [3] [a]), for falsely reporting a burglary to cover up the larceny. Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction inasmuch as his testimony that he was on pain medication that caused memory loss and confusion demonstrated that he lacked the requisite intent to commit the charged crimes. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19), and in any event his contention lacks merit. "[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that a rational jury could have found that, despite defendant's alleged intoxication, defendant intended to " deprive [the victim] of [his rifle] or to appropriate the same' " (People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 118, quoting § 155.05 [1]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and knowingly made a false report (see generally § 240.50). Additionally, although a different result would not have been unreasonable (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the element of intent as charged to the jury (see id. at 349), the verdict with respect to that element is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

Defendant further contends that County Court erred in granting the prosecutor's motion in limine seeking to preclude defense counsel from impeaching the People's witnesses upon cross-examination with certain prior arrests and traffic infractions. Defense counsel, however, waived that contention when he confirmed that he had no objection to the court's ruling (see generally People v Graham, 292 AD2d 824, 824, lv denied 98 NY2d 697). With respect to defendant's contention that the prosecutor's cross-examination of him exceeded the scope of direct examination, we note that, "in a criminal case, a party may prove through cross-examination any relevant proposition, regardless of the scope of direct examination" (People v Sanders, 2 AD3d 1420, 1420-1421 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.